Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Words deriving from Spoonerisms
535 views
Skip to first unread message
Harrison Hill
Dec 8, 2016, 12:50:37 PM12/8/16
to
There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
HVS
Dec 8, 2016, 1:13:02 PM12/8/16
to
On 08 Dec 2016, Harrison Hill wrote
I've always suspected that extended words began that way: "orientated" v
"oriented", or
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
"oriented", or
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
Richard Heathfield
Dec 8, 2016, 1:13:32 PM12/8/16
to
strictly a Spoonerism, but nevertheless an old favourite: In the late
1980s I spent a lot of time travelling on the Liverpool-Southport line.
One of the stops on that line is "Seaforth and Litherland". I invariably
referred to it as "See Land and Slither Forth".
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Harvey
Dec 8, 2016, 1:49:22 PM12/8/16
to
Sorry ;I meant to abandon that post, not to send it.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanE (30 years) & BrE (34 years), indiscriminately mixed
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanE (30 years) & BrE (34 years), indiscriminately mixed
Peter Young
Dec 8, 2016, 2:14:26 PM12/8/16
to
On 8 Dec 2016 Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> On 08/12/16 17:50, Harrison Hill wrote:
>> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
>> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
>>
>> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
>> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
> Certainly not everyday /now/ (although it was, at the time), and not
> strictly a Spoonerism, but nevertheless an old favourite: In the late
> 1980s I spent a lot of time travelling on the Liverpool-Southport line.
> One of the stops on that line is "Seaforth and Litherland". I invariably
> referred to it as "See Land and Slither Forth".
Didn't one of the BBC weather forecasters predict "fist and mog"?
> On 08/12/16 17:50, Harrison Hill wrote:
>> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
>> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
>>
>> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
>> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
> Certainly not everyday /now/ (although it was, at the time), and not
> strictly a Spoonerism, but nevertheless an old favourite: In the late
> 1980s I spent a lot of time travelling on the Liverpool-Southport line.
> One of the stops on that line is "Seaforth and Litherland". I invariably
> referred to it as "See Land and Slither Forth".
Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Ir)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Jerry Friedman
Dec 8, 2016, 2:44:34 PM12/8/16
to
a mispronunciation of "ic" (both with other spellings, I'm sure). You
can extend this principle to two-letter words, three-letter words, etc.
There is a common word or two derived by spoonerism, but I can't
think of it or them. "Ask", maybe?
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
Dec 8, 2016, 2:45:13 PM12/8/16
to
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 12:44:34 PM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:50:37 AM UTC-7, Harrison Hill wrote:
> > There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
> > which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
> >
> > What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
> > slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
...
> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:50:37 AM UTC-7, Harrison Hill wrote:
> > There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
> > which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
> >
> > What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
> > slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
> There is a common word or two derived by spoonerism, but I can't
> think of it or them. "Ask", maybe?
--
Jerry Friedman
Harrison Hill
Dec 8, 2016, 3:12:55 PM12/8/16
to
involves this drink and this genre:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh9mereIx1o
The drink is associated nowadays with the gentlemen (and ladies)
of polite London; but Hogarth associated it with the worst excesses
of the London slums.
The opposite side of the spoonerism (if you like) is "bin" :)
bebe...@aol.com
Dec 8, 2016, 7:34:40 PM12/8/16
to
Peter Moylan
Dec 8, 2016, 7:54:52 PM12/8/16
to
On 2016-Dec-09 05:47, Peter Young wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2016 Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 08/12/16 17:50, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
>>> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
>>>
>>> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
>>> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
>
>> Certainly not everyday /now/ (although it was, at the time), and not
>> strictly a Spoonerism, but nevertheless an old favourite: In the late
>> 1980s I spent a lot of time travelling on the Liverpool-Southport line.
>> One of the stops on that line is "Seaforth and Litherland". I invariably
>> referred to it as "See Land and Slither Forth".
>
> Didn't one of the BBC weather forecasters predict "fist and mog"?
One of our radio reporters got into trouble when he reported that a girl
> On 8 Dec 2016 Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 08/12/16 17:50, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
>>> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
>>>
>>> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
>>> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
>
>> Certainly not everyday /now/ (although it was, at the time), and not
>> strictly a Spoonerism, but nevertheless an old favourite: In the late
>> 1980s I spent a lot of time travelling on the Liverpool-Southport line.
>> One of the stops on that line is "Seaforth and Litherland". I invariably
>> referred to it as "See Land and Slither Forth".
>
> Didn't one of the BBC weather forecasters predict "fist and mog"?
had been bitten on the funnel by a fingerweb spider.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
bill van
Dec 8, 2016, 8:11:54 PM12/8/16
to
In article <171b60eb5...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
foop". I haven't heard it lately, however.
--
bill
Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2016 Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 08/12/16 17:50, Harrison Hill wrote:
> >> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
> >> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
> >>
> >> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
> >> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
>
> > Certainly not everyday /now/ (although it was, at the time), and not
> > strictly a Spoonerism, but nevertheless an old favourite: In the late
> > 1980s I spent a lot of time travelling on the Liverpool-Southport line.
> > One of the stops on that line is "Seaforth and Litherland". I invariably
> > referred to it as "See Land and Slither Forth".
>
> Didn't one of the BBC weather forecasters predict "fist and mog"?
>
A few decades ago, I knew people who would habitually say "one swell
> On 8 Dec 2016 Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 08/12/16 17:50, Harrison Hill wrote:
> >> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
> >> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
> >>
> >> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
> >> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
>
> > Certainly not everyday /now/ (although it was, at the time), and not
> > strictly a Spoonerism, but nevertheless an old favourite: In the late
> > 1980s I spent a lot of time travelling on the Liverpool-Southport line.
> > One of the stops on that line is "Seaforth and Litherland". I invariably
> > referred to it as "See Land and Slither Forth".
>
> Didn't one of the BBC weather forecasters predict "fist and mog"?
>
foop". I haven't heard it lately, however.
--
bill
Robert Bannister
Dec 8, 2016, 9:33:31 PM12/8/16
to
that "ask" was originally "aks". This is not true.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Dec 8, 2016, 9:46:09 PM12/8/16
to
bebe...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Not exactly what you're asking for, but "cunning stunts"
> should always be pronounced with utmost care.
>
Not to mention "cunning runts."
>
> Not exactly what you're asking for, but "cunning stunts"
> should always be pronounced with utmost care.
>
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Richard Yates
Dec 8, 2016, 9:54:34 PM12/8/16
to
Jesse Sheidlower, the president of the American Dialect Society, says
"ax" has been used for a thousand years. "It is not a new thing; it is
not a mistake," he says. "It is a regular feature of English."
Sheidlower says you can trace "ax" back to the eighth century. The
pronunciation derives from the Old English verb "acsian." Chaucer used
"ax." It's in the first complete English translation of the Bible (the
Coverdale Bible): " 'Axe and it shall be given.'
musika
Dec 8, 2016, 9:54:53 PM12/8/16
to
recent change.
--
Ray
UK
Ross
Dec 8, 2016, 10:06:12 PM12/8/16
to
OE Dispute between Edwin & his Mother (Sawyer 1462)
in A. J. Robertson Anglo-Saxon Charters (1956) 153
Þa acsode þe bisceop hwa sceolde andswerian for his moder.
They are not just some product of our degenerate modern age.
There are some similar cases, e.g. "tusk" is more often
<tux> than <tusc> in OE. I have a couple of other examples
on a bit of paper I can't find at the moment. The only other
one I remember is not English-internal, but "wax (n)", which
has -ks- throughout Germanic, turns up in Balto-Slavic as
e.g. Russian /vosk/.
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 8, 2016, 11:20:53 PM12/8/16
to
Peter Young
Dec 9, 2016, 2:42:01 AM12/9/16
to
Dingbat
Dec 9, 2016, 2:47:39 AM12/9/16
to
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 11:43:02 PM UTC+5:30, HVS wrote:
> On 08 Dec 2016, Harrison Hill wrote
>
> > There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
> > which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
> >
> > What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
> > slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
> >
> I've always suspected that extended words began that way: "orientated" v
> "oriented", or
>
How about commentator vs. commenter?
> On 08 Dec 2016, Harrison Hill wrote
>
> > There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
> > which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
> >
> > What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
> > slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
> >
> I've always suspected that extended words began that way: "orientated" v
> "oriented", or
>
I used to come across only the former; now, I've encountered the latter.
Dingbat
Dec 9, 2016, 2:49:53 AM12/9/16
to
Dingbat
Dec 9, 2016, 2:55:10 AM12/9/16
to
RH Draney
Dec 9, 2016, 3:53:26 AM12/9/16
to
RH Draney
Dec 9, 2016, 3:54:29 AM12/9/16
to
kabiddle"....
(But that's half of one, six dozen of the other)....r
RH Draney
Dec 9, 2016, 3:57:33 AM12/9/16
to
bath?
A: One has hope in her soul....
(And because we recently had mention of viola jokes....)
Q: What's the difference between a seamstress and a violist?
A: A seamstress tucks up the frills.
....r
Harvey
Dec 9, 2016, 4:27:39 AM12/9/16
to
On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 17:11:51 -0800, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:
Did you perchance hear that on the British or Canadian Broadcorping
Castration?
wrote:
Castration?
Richard Tobin
Dec 9, 2016, 5:05:03 AM12/9/16
to
In article <p57k4c1qcesrjmu1b...@4ax.com>,
doesn't mean that someone using it now not making a mistake.
-- Richard
Richard Yates <ric...@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>Jesse Sheidlower, the president of the American Dialect Society, says
>"ax" has been used for a thousand years. "It is not a new thing; it is
>not a mistake," he says. "It is a regular feature of English."
>
>Sheidlower says you can trace "ax" back to the eighth century. The
>pronunciation derives from the Old English verb "acsian." Chaucer used
>"ax." It's in the first complete English translation of the Bible (the
>Coverdale Bible): " 'Axe and it shall be given.'
Of course, the fact that something has been used for a thousand years
>Jesse Sheidlower, the president of the American Dialect Society, says
>"ax" has been used for a thousand years. "It is not a new thing; it is
>not a mistake," he says. "It is a regular feature of English."
>
>Sheidlower says you can trace "ax" back to the eighth century. The
>pronunciation derives from the Old English verb "acsian." Chaucer used
>"ax." It's in the first complete English translation of the Bible (the
>Coverdale Bible): " 'Axe and it shall be given.'
doesn't mean that someone using it now not making a mistake.
-- Richard
Ross
Dec 9, 2016, 5:11:16 AM12/9/16
to
James Hogg
Dec 9, 2016, 5:11:41 AM12/9/16
to
--
James
Richard Heathfield
Dec 9, 2016, 5:25:59 AM12/9/16
to
On 09/12/16 02:54, Richard Yates wrote:
<snip>
> Jesse Sheidlower, the president of the American Dialect Society, says
> "ax" has been used for a thousand years. "It is not a new thing; it is
> not a mistake," he says. "It is a regular feature of English."
>
> Sheidlower says you can trace "ax" back to the eighth century.
Sheidlower is mistaken. I can't.
*He* might be able to. His colleagues might be able to. Even his
professional rivals might be able to. For all I know, his /dog/ might be
able to. But me? No.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
<snip>
> Jesse Sheidlower, the president of the American Dialect Society, says
> "ax" has been used for a thousand years. "It is not a new thing; it is
> not a mistake," he says. "It is a regular feature of English."
>
> Sheidlower says you can trace "ax" back to the eighth century.
*He* might be able to. His colleagues might be able to. Even his
professional rivals might be able to. For all I know, his /dog/ might be
able to. But me? No.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
CDB
Dec 9, 2016, 8:04:59 AM12/9/16
to
On 12/8/2016 11:20 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> bebe...@aol.com wrote:
>> Harrison Hill a écrit :
>>> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my
>>> BrE) which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a
>>> Spoonerism.
>>> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
>>> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
>> Not exactly what you're asking for, but "cunning stunts" should
>> always be pronounced with utmost care.
> When would you have occasion to say "cunning stunts"?
"Pheasant plucking is a cunning stunt."
>> Harrison Hill a écrit :
>>> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my
>>> BrE) which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a
>>> Spoonerism.
>>> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
>>> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
>> Not exactly what you're asking for, but "cunning stunts" should
>> always be pronounced with utmost care.
> When would you have occasion to say "cunning stunts"?
Harrison Hill
Dec 9, 2016, 8:56:53 AM12/9/16
to
Origins by Joseph Twadell Shipley in 1945 the word "jitters" "is from a
spoonerism ['bin and jitters' for 'gin and bitters']...and originally
referred to one under the influence of gin and bitters".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitterbug
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 9, 2016, 9:44:53 AM12/9/16
to
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 2:42:01 AM UTC-5, Peter Young wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2016 "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 7:34:40 PM UTC-5, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> >> Le jeudi 8 décembre 2016 18:50:37 UTC+1, Harrison Hill a écrit :
>
> >>> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
> >>> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
> >>>
> >>> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
> >>> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
> >>
> >> Not exactly what you're asking for, but "cunning stunts" should always
> >> be pronounced with utmost care.
>
> > When would you have occasion to say "cunning stunts"?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunning_Stunts
I've never heard of "Caravan," which doesn't mean much:
> On 9 Dec 2016 "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 7:34:40 PM UTC-5, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> >> Le jeudi 8 décembre 2016 18:50:37 UTC+1, Harrison Hill a écrit :
>
> >>> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
> >>> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
> >>>
> >>> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
> >>> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
> >>
> >> Not exactly what you're asking for, but "cunning stunts" should always
> >> be pronounced with utmost care.
>
> > When would you have occasion to say "cunning stunts"?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunning_Stunts
"Cunning Stunts is the sixth studio album by the progressive rock band Caravan, released in 1975. It was their first album with the bass guitarist, vocalist and songwriter Mike Wedgwood. The title of the album is a spoonerism for 'Stunning Cunts', which is typical of their cheeky use of language. Two previous Caravan albums with titles that are also sexual plays on words are If I Could Do It All Over Again, I'd Do It All Over You (1970) and For Girls Who Grow Plump in the Night (1973)."
but that they should be so influential (see the "disambiguation
page" linked above) boggles the mind.
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 9, 2016, 9:50:47 AM12/9/16
to
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 5:25:59 AM UTC-5, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 09/12/16 02:54, Richard Yates wrote:
> > Jesse Sheidlower, the president of the American Dialect Society, says
> > "ax" has been used for a thousand years. "It is not a new thing; it is
> > not a mistake," he says. "It is a regular feature of English."
> > Sheidlower says you can trace "ax" back to the eighth century.
>
> Sheidlower is mistaken. I can't.
>
> *He* might be able to. His colleagues might be able to. Even his
> professional rivals might be able to. For all I know, his /dog/ might be
> able to. But me? No.
Could someone please enlighten Heathfield as to the significance of the
> On 09/12/16 02:54, Richard Yates wrote:
> > Jesse Sheidlower, the president of the American Dialect Society, says
> > "ax" has been used for a thousand years. "It is not a new thing; it is
> > not a mistake," he says. "It is a regular feature of English."
> > Sheidlower says you can trace "ax" back to the eighth century.
>
> Sheidlower is mistaken. I can't.
>
> *He* might be able to. His colleagues might be able to. Even his
> professional rivals might be able to. For all I know, his /dog/ might be
> able to. But me? No.
absence of quotation marks, and as to the nature of indirect quotation?
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Dec 9, 2016, 10:17:20 AM12/9/16
to
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 06:44:51 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
They probably weren't. As far as I can remember, the phrase was already
in use before that album was released.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
in use before that album was released.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
bert
Dec 9, 2016, 10:55:38 AM12/9/16
to
On Friday, 9 December 2016 04:20:53 UTC, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> When would you have occasion to say "cunning stunts"?
Q. What is the difference between a magician's wand
> When would you have occasion to say "cunning stunts"?
and a policeman's baton?
A. A magician's wand is used for cunning stunts . . .
--
Peter Young
Dec 9, 2016, 11:59:16 AM12/9/16
to
Peter.
Peter Young
Dec 9, 2016, 11:59:16 AM12/9/16
to
What's the difference between a circus and the chorus-line at The
Follies Bergeres doing the Can-Can?
Peter Young
Dec 9, 2016, 11:59:16 AM12/9/16
to
Rispky Korsetsoff?
Peter Young
Dec 9, 2016, 11:59:17 AM12/9/16
to
to say this.
bebe...@aol.com
Dec 9, 2016, 12:13:46 PM12/9/16
to
Le jeudi 8 décembre 2016 18:50:37 UTC+1, Harrison Hill a écrit :
> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
>
> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
I just thought of one such instance, but actually it's at the border of metathesis and spoonerism, to wit: "ect." for "etc."
> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
>
> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
The reason it's both is that "etc." stands for two words "et caetera", so that "ect." is a metathesis in that a letter is displaced, and a spoonerism as some people wrongly pronounce it "excetera", probably owing to the displaced letter.
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 9, 2016, 3:12:08 PM12/9/16
to
bill van
Dec 9, 2016, 3:22:25 PM12/9/16
to
In article <almarsoft.3282...@news.albasani.net>,
I don't know where I first heard it, but in university days I listened
to the CBC a lot and ran with a crowd that was much into wordplay and
would exchange, word for word, lines of dialogue from The Goon Show,
Firesign Theatre and of course Monty Python. And yes, I'd forgotten, but
we often called it the Canadian Broadcorping Castration.
--
bill
to the CBC a lot and ran with a crowd that was much into wordplay and
would exchange, word for word, lines of dialogue from The Goon Show,
Firesign Theatre and of course Monty Python. And yes, I'd forgotten, but
we often called it the Canadian Broadcorping Castration.
--
bill
Dingbat
Dec 9, 2016, 4:49:14 PM12/9/16
to
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 10:29:16 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Young wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2016 RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On 12/8/2016 9:20 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 7:34:40 PM UTC-5, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Not exactly what you're asking for, but "cunning stunts" should always
> >>> be pronounced with utmost care.
> >>
> >> When would you have occasion to say "cunning stunts"?
>
> > Q: What's the difference between a nun at prayer and a nun taking a
> > bath?
> > A: One has hope in her soul....
>
> > (And because we recently had mention of viola jokes....)
>
> > Q: What's the difference between a seamstress and a violist?
> > A: A seamstress tucks up the frills.
>
> Back on topic:
>
> What's the difference between a circus and the chorus-line at The
> Follies Bergeres doing the Can-Can?
>
What's a cunning linguist?
> On 9 Dec 2016 RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On 12/8/2016 9:20 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 7:34:40 PM UTC-5, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Not exactly what you're asking for, but "cunning stunts" should always
> >>> be pronounced with utmost care.
> >>
> >> When would you have occasion to say "cunning stunts"?
>
> > Q: What's the difference between a nun at prayer and a nun taking a
> > bath?
> > A: One has hope in her soul....
>
> > (And because we recently had mention of viola jokes....)
>
> > Q: What's the difference between a seamstress and a violist?
> > A: A seamstress tucks up the frills.
>
> Back on topic:
>
> What's the difference between a circus and the chorus-line at The
> Follies Bergeres doing the Can-Can?
>
"You're a cunning linguist, James!" - Moneypenny played by Samantha Bond
Message has been deleted
Dingbat
Dec 9, 2016, 6:00:36 PM12/9/16
to
On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 3:30:54 AM UTC+5:30, Dingbat wrote:
In some instances, et caetera might be wrong. A virtue of the abbreviation etc. and the loanword spelling cetera is that they don't inflect. Pedantically using the original spelling caetera might incur an irksome obligation to maintain one's pedantic mein by inflecting it to caeterae for objects that could be imagined as feminine, like a collection of ships.
Likewise, et al expands to one of et alii' (masculine plural) or `et aliae' (feminine plural) or `et alia' (neuter plural).
ect, if it catches on, could be imagined as 'e' being short for "et" and 'ct' being short for "caeter + the appropriate inflection".
Aside: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/etc claims that et alia is a synonym of et cetera.
Likewise, et al expands to one of et alii' (masculine plural) or `et aliae' (feminine plural) or `et alia' (neuter plural).
ect, if it catches on, could be imagined as 'e' being short for "et" and 'ct' being short for "caeter + the appropriate inflection".
Aside: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/etc claims that et alia is a synonym of et cetera.
Message has been deleted
bebe...@aol.com
Dec 9, 2016, 7:49:39 PM12/9/16
to
Le samedi 10 décembre 2016 00:00:36 UTC+1, Dingbat a écrit :
> On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 3:30:54 AM UTC+5:30, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 10:43:46 PM UTC+5:30, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 8 décembre 2016 18:50:37 UTC+1, Harrison Hill a écrit :
> > > > There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
> > > > which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
> > > >
> > > > What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
> > > > slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
> > >
> > > I just thought of one such instance, but actually it's at the border of metathesis and spoonerism, to wit: "ect." for "etc."
> > >
> > > The reason it's both is that "etc." stands for two words "et caetera",
> so that "ect." is a metathesis in that a letter is displaced, and a spoonerism as some people wrongly pronounce it "excetera", probably owing to the displaced letter.
> >
> In some instances, et caetera might be wrong. A virtue of the abbreviation etc. and the loanword spelling cetera is that they don't inflect.
"cetera" doesn't inflect in "et cetera" because it's an adverbial phrase. I can't think of any other instances of "cetera" in English.
> On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 3:30:54 AM UTC+5:30, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 10:43:46 PM UTC+5:30, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 8 décembre 2016 18:50:37 UTC+1, Harrison Hill a écrit :
> > > > There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
> > > > which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
> > > >
> > > > What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
> > > > slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
> > >
> > > I just thought of one such instance, but actually it's at the border of metathesis and spoonerism, to wit: "ect." for "etc."
> > >
> > > The reason it's both is that "etc." stands for two words "et caetera",
> so that "ect." is a metathesis in that a letter is displaced, and a spoonerism as some people wrongly pronounce it "excetera", probably owing to the displaced letter.
> >
> In some instances, et caetera might be wrong. A virtue of the abbreviation etc. and the loanword spelling cetera is that they don't inflect.
> Pedantically using the original spelling caetera might incur an irksome
> obligation to maintain one's pedantic mein by inflecting it to caeterae
> for objects that could be imagined as feminine, like a collection of ships.
However, in your example above, the correct inflection should be of "ae", regardless of whether the spelling used is "ceterae" or "caeterae".
>
> Likewise, et al expands to one of et alii' (masculine plural) or `et aliae' (feminine plural) or `et alia' (neuter plural).
>
> ect, if it catches on, could be imagined as 'e' being short for "et" and 'ct' being short for "caeter + the appropriate inflection".
I was taught "alia" means "the others" and "cetera" "all the others".
Robert Bannister
Dec 9, 2016, 8:17:52 PM12/9/16
to
On 9/12/16 3:47 pm, Dingbat wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 11:43:02 PM UTC+5:30, HVS wrote:
>> On 08 Dec 2016, Harrison Hill wrote
>> "oriented", or
>>
> How about commentator vs. commenter?
>
> I used to come across only the former; now, I've encountered the latter.
>
Commentator is fine, but the verb "commentate" is new and ugly.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 11:43:02 PM UTC+5:30, HVS wrote:
>> On 08 Dec 2016, Harrison Hill wrote
>>
>>> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
>>> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
>>>
>>> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
>>> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
>>>
>> I've always suspected that extended words began that way: "orientated" v
>>> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
>>> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
>>>
>>> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
>>> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
>>>
>> "oriented", or
>>
> How about commentator vs. commenter?
>
> I used to come across only the former; now, I've encountered the latter.
>
Commentator is fine, but the verb "commentate" is new and ugly.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Robert Bannister
Dec 9, 2016, 8:28:16 PM12/9/16
to
On 9/12/16 11:06 am, Ross wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 3:33:31 PM UTC+13, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 9/12/16 3:45 am, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 12:44:34 PM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a common word or two derived by spoonerism, but I can't
>>>> think of it or them. "Ask", maybe?
>>>
>>> Sorry, that might be metathesis but it's not spoonerism.
>>>
>>
>> There seems to be some kind of (not strictly urban) myth going around
>> that "ask" was originally "aks". This is not true.
>
> No, but "aks" forms have been around since earliest times:
>
> OE Dispute between Edwin & his Mother (Sawyer 1462)
> in A. J. Robertson Anglo-Saxon Charters (1956) 153
> Þa acsode þe bisceop hwa sceolde andswerian for his moder.
>
> They are not just some product of our degenerate modern age.
>
> There are some similar cases, e.g. "tusk" is more often
> <tux> than <tusc> in OE. I have a couple of other examples
> on a bit of paper I can't find at the moment. The only other
> one I remember is not English-internal, but "wax (n)", which
> has -ks- throughout Germanic, turns up in Balto-Slavic as
> e.g. Russian /vosk/.
>
When in doubt, I blame Anglo-Saxon predictive text.
> On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 3:33:31 PM UTC+13, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 9/12/16 3:45 am, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 12:44:34 PM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:50:37 AM UTC-7, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>>>> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
>>>>> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
>>>>> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
>>> ...
>>>>> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
>>>>> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
>>>>> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
>>>
>>>> There is a common word or two derived by spoonerism, but I can't
>>>> think of it or them. "Ask", maybe?
>>>
>>> Sorry, that might be metathesis but it's not spoonerism.
>>>
>>
>> There seems to be some kind of (not strictly urban) myth going around
>> that "ask" was originally "aks". This is not true.
>
> No, but "aks" forms have been around since earliest times:
>
> OE Dispute between Edwin & his Mother (Sawyer 1462)
> in A. J. Robertson Anglo-Saxon Charters (1956) 153
> Þa acsode þe bisceop hwa sceolde andswerian for his moder.
>
> They are not just some product of our degenerate modern age.
>
> There are some similar cases, e.g. "tusk" is more often
> <tux> than <tusc> in OE. I have a couple of other examples
> on a bit of paper I can't find at the moment. The only other
> one I remember is not English-internal, but "wax (n)", which
> has -ks- throughout Germanic, turns up in Balto-Slavic as
> e.g. Russian /vosk/.
>
When in doubt, I blame Anglo-Saxon predictive text.
Robert Bannister
Dec 9, 2016, 8:34:34 PM12/9/16
to
On 10/12/16 12:50 am, Peter Young wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2016 Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 11:20:37 PM UTC+5:30, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
>>> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
>>>
>>> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
>>> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
>
>> I've heard 'What can I do for you?' expressed as 'What can I do you for?'
>
> Quite common in a few dialects of BrE. I'm sure my Irish in-laws used
> to say this.
I thought that came from a comedy show whose name I've forgotten, but
> On 9 Dec 2016 Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 11:20:37 PM UTC+5:30, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
>>> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
>>>
>>> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
>>> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
>
>> I've heard 'What can I do for you?' expressed as 'What can I do you for?'
>
> Quite common in a few dialects of BrE. I'm sure my Irish in-laws used
> to say this.
now I think I was thinking of Mrs Mopp on ITMA: "Can I do yer now, sir?".
Ross
Dec 9, 2016, 8:38:05 PM12/9/16
to
is documented since 1794. The modern usage (back-formed from "commentator"),
which I associate with fashion shows, dates from the 1950s. So I guess
you can call that "new".
"Ugly"? You're entitled to your opinion.
Tony Cooper
Dec 9, 2016, 8:56:12 PM12/9/16
to
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Moylan
Dec 9, 2016, 9:58:26 PM12/9/16
to
Joe Fineman
Dec 10, 2016, 5:58:48 PM12/10/16
to
rest", so that is a fair rule of thumb:
Inter alia,...
Nil nisi divinum stabile est, cetera fumus.
In English, *properly*, "et al." (for "alii", not "alia") is a scholarly
idiom for "the other authors of a previously cited work" or, more
loosely, for "that author and his/her coworkers". However, in vulgar
academese, it has indeed become a pretentious synonym of "etc.", which
has burst the bounds of Latin (see MEU): it can mean "and other or
similar things or people".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Aristotle invented the doctrine of original sin. He said :||
||: that man is a political animal. :||
bebe...@aol.com
Dec 10, 2016, 6:59:20 PM12/10/16
to
Le samedi 10 décembre 2016 23:58:48 UTC+1, Joe Fineman a écrit :
> bebe...@aol.com writes:
>
> > Le samedi 10 décembre 2016 00:00:36 UTC+1, Dingbat a écrit :
>
> >> Aside: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/etc claims that et alia is a
> >> synonym of et cetera.
> >
> > I was taught "alia" means "the others" and "cetera" "all the others".
>
> In Latin, "alia" means "others" (neuter), and "cetera" means "the
> rest", so that is a fair rule of thumb:
>
> Inter alia,...
> Nil nisi divinum stabile est, cetera fumus.
Here "cetera" is used as a neuter plural pronoun, so that indeed "the rest" is a relevant translation, as it means something along the line of "all the other things".
> bebe...@aol.com writes:
>
> > Le samedi 10 décembre 2016 00:00:36 UTC+1, Dingbat a écrit :
>
> >> Aside: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/etc claims that et alia is a
> >> synonym of et cetera.
> >
> > I was taught "alia" means "the others" and "cetera" "all the others".
>
> In Latin, "alia" means "others" (neuter), and "cetera" means "the
> rest", so that is a fair rule of thumb:
>
> Inter alia,...
> Nil nisi divinum stabile est, cetera fumus.
Now change the sentence to e.g.:
"Nil nisi divinum stabile est, cetera argumenta fumus"
where "argumenta" is the nominative plural of the neuter noun "argumentum", and it clearly appears that the only possible translation of "cetera" is "all the other ...", as it's used as an adjective.
Robert Bannister
Dec 10, 2016, 7:40:50 PM12/10/16
to
century from sports commentators whose English is usually suspect.
>
> "Ugly"? You're entitled to your opinion.
>
I rather orientate myself than commentate.
> "Ugly"? You're entitled to your opinion.
>
Robert Bannister
Dec 10, 2016, 7:42:05 PM12/10/16
to
English who used it, but I was wrong.
bill van
Dec 11, 2016, 2:02:38 AM12/11/16
to
In article <eb3lkg...@mid.individual.net>,
A couple of seasons ago, most of our ice hockey play-by-play announcers
kept telling us that a goaltender had made "a reactionary save". They
meant that the goalie had reacted to the shot, as opposed to "a
positional save", which is blocking a shot by being in the right place.
Someone must have told them what "reactionary" means. It has disappeared
completely from the commentary in the present National Hockey League
season.
--
bill
kept telling us that a goaltender had made "a reactionary save". They
meant that the goalie had reacted to the shot, as opposed to "a
positional save", which is blocking a shot by being in the right place.
Someone must have told them what "reactionary" means. It has disappeared
completely from the commentary in the present National Hockey League
season.
--
bill
CDB
Dec 11, 2016, 7:04:15 AM12/11/16
to
On 12/10/2016 6:59 PM, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> Joe Fineman a écrit :
>> bebe...@aol.com writes:
>>> Le samedi 10 décembre 2016 00:00:36 UTC+1, Dingbat a écrit :
>>>> Aside: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/etc claims that et alia
>>>> is a synonym of et cetera.
>>> I was taught "alia" means "the others" and "cetera" "all the
>>> others".
>> In Latin, "alia" means "others" (neuter), and "cetera" means "the
>> rest", so that is a fair rule of thumb:
>> Inter alia,... Nil nisi divinum stabile est, cetera fumus.
> Here "cetera" is used as a neuter plural pronoun, so that indeed "the
> rest" is a relevant translation, as it means something along the line
> of "all the other things".
> Now change the sentence to e.g.:
> "Nil nisi divinum stabile est, cetera argumenta fumus"
> where "argumenta" is the nominative plural of the neuter noun
> "argumentum", and it clearly appears that the only possible
> translation of "cetera" is "all the other ...", as it's used as an
> adjective.
Yes, but the word "argumenta" doesn't appear in the statement. It could
> Joe Fineman a écrit :
>> bebe...@aol.com writes:
>>> Le samedi 10 décembre 2016 00:00:36 UTC+1, Dingbat a écrit :
>>>> Aside: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/etc claims that et alia
>>>> is a synonym of et cetera.
>>> I was taught "alia" means "the others" and "cetera" "all the
>>> others".
>> In Latin, "alia" means "others" (neuter), and "cetera" means "the
>> rest", so that is a fair rule of thumb:
>> Inter alia,... Nil nisi divinum stabile est, cetera fumus.
> Here "cetera" is used as a neuter plural pronoun, so that indeed "the
> rest" is a relevant translation, as it means something along the line
> of "all the other things".
> Now change the sentence to e.g.:
> "Nil nisi divinum stabile est, cetera argumenta fumus"
> where "argumenta" is the nominative plural of the neuter noun
> "argumentum", and it clearly appears that the only possible
> translation of "cetera" is "all the other ...", as it's used as an
> adjective.
as easily be "verba" (or for that matter "stercora": that other shit).
Since the particular leftover is not identified in the original, "the
rest" is a better version, IMO.
Dingbat
Dec 11, 2016, 8:20:33 AM12/11/16
to
On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:28:48 AM UTC+5:30, Joe Fineman wrote:
> bebe...@aol.com writes:
>
> > Le samedi 10 décembre 2016 00:00:36 UTC+1, Dingbat a écrit :
>
> >> Aside: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/etc claims that et alia is a
> >> synonym of et cetera.
> >
> > I was taught "alia" means "the others" and "cetera" "all the others".
>
> In Latin, "alia" means "others" (neuter), and "cetera" means "the
> rest", so that is a fair rule of thumb:
>
> Inter alia,...
> Nil nisi divinum stabile est, cetera fumus.
>
> In English, *properly*, "et al." (for "alii", not "alia") is a scholarly
> idiom for "the other authors of a previously cited work" or, more
> loosely, for "that author and his/her coworkers". However, in vulgar
> academese, it has indeed become a pretentious synonym of "etc.", which
> has burst the bounds of Latin (see MEU): it can mean "and other or
> similar things or people".
IMHO, if etc. means 'the rest', then the rest of the authors ought to be etc.
> bebe...@aol.com writes:
>
> > Le samedi 10 décembre 2016 00:00:36 UTC+1, Dingbat a écrit :
>
> >> Aside: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/etc claims that et alia is a
> >> synonym of et cetera.
> >
> > I was taught "alia" means "the others" and "cetera" "all the others".
>
> In Latin, "alia" means "others" (neuter), and "cetera" means "the
> rest", so that is a fair rule of thumb:
>
> Inter alia,...
> Nil nisi divinum stabile est, cetera fumus.
>
> In English, *properly*, "et al." (for "alii", not "alia") is a scholarly
> idiom for "the other authors of a previously cited work" or, more
> loosely, for "that author and his/her coworkers". However, in vulgar
> academese, it has indeed become a pretentious synonym of "etc.", which
> has burst the bounds of Latin (see MEU): it can mean "and other or
> similar things or people".
rather than et al. For comparison, Tamil has different terms for 'the rest' and
'others'; the rest of a group would use the former term, including the rest of
a group of authors.
A distinction between exclusive and inclusive "others":
In Tamil, enai means "the rest of the party under discussion" whereas
mattavar/ mattellaavar means "others"/ " all others". Unlike some languages,
English doesn't use separate words to distinguish exclusive and inclusive; for
example, English "we" could be either exclusive or inclusive depending on
context but in Tamil; naangal and nammal are exclusive and inclusive "we",
respectively, and not interchangeable.
Jerry Friedman
Dec 11, 2016, 9:41:35 AM12/11/16
to
On 12/11/16 12:02 AM, bill van wrote:
...
> A couple of seasons ago, most of our ice hockey play-by-play announcers
> kept telling us that a goaltender had made "a reactionary save". They
> meant that the goalie had reacted to the shot, as opposed to "a
> positional save", which is blocking a shot by being in the right place.
>
> Someone must have told them what "reactionary" means. It has disappeared
> completely from the commentary in the present National Hockey League
> season.
I wish someone would tell Americans. "Reactionary" in the sense of "as
a reaction to a stimulus or event" is common. I don't think my students
know the political meaning.
--
Jerry Friedman
...
> A couple of seasons ago, most of our ice hockey play-by-play announcers
> kept telling us that a goaltender had made "a reactionary save". They
> meant that the goalie had reacted to the shot, as opposed to "a
> positional save", which is blocking a shot by being in the right place.
>
> Someone must have told them what "reactionary" means. It has disappeared
> completely from the commentary in the present National Hockey League
> season.
a reaction to a stimulus or event" is common. I don't think my students
know the political meaning.
--
Jerry Friedman
Richard Yates
Dec 11, 2016, 10:05:06 AM12/11/16
to
On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 23:02:35 -0800, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:
My impression is that sports commentators invent, use and then abandon
terminology in waves of fashion rather than in response to feedback. A
few years ago, in American football, the term "in space" appeared as
in "They like to get him the ball in space". There, "in space"
apparently means carrying the ball in an area where the defenders are
relatively spread out so that the runner has a change of dodging them
rather than contacting and pushing them back.
For decades "hang time" (the length of time that a punt stays in the
air) was common (with little on-screen timers during each punt) but I
have not heard it recently.
Of course that "get him the ball" deserves its own thread. Does that
sense of "get" occur outside of football?
wrote:
terminology in waves of fashion rather than in response to feedback. A
few years ago, in American football, the term "in space" appeared as
in "They like to get him the ball in space". There, "in space"
apparently means carrying the ball in an area where the defenders are
relatively spread out so that the runner has a change of dodging them
rather than contacting and pushing them back.
For decades "hang time" (the length of time that a punt stays in the
air) was common (with little on-screen timers during each punt) but I
have not heard it recently.
Of course that "get him the ball" deserves its own thread. Does that
sense of "get" occur outside of football?
Tony Cooper
Dec 11, 2016, 11:09:32 AM12/11/16
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 07:05:02 -0800, Richard Yates
<ric...@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>
>My impression is that sports commentators invent, use and then abandon
>terminology in waves of fashion rather than in response to feedback. A
>few years ago, in American football, the term "in space" appeared as
>in "They like to get him the ball in space". There, "in space"
>apparently means carrying the ball in an area where the defenders are
>relatively spread out so that the runner has a change of dodging them
>rather than contacting and pushing them back.
>
>For decades "hang time" (the length of time that a punt stays in the
>air) was common (with little on-screen timers during each punt) but I
>have not heard it recently.
>
>Of course that "get him the ball" deserves its own thread. Does that
>sense of "get" occur outside of football?
Mostly basketball in my experience. While the non-sportsfan may not
<ric...@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>
>My impression is that sports commentators invent, use and then abandon
>terminology in waves of fashion rather than in response to feedback. A
>few years ago, in American football, the term "in space" appeared as
>in "They like to get him the ball in space". There, "in space"
>apparently means carrying the ball in an area where the defenders are
>relatively spread out so that the runner has a change of dodging them
>rather than contacting and pushing them back.
>
>For decades "hang time" (the length of time that a punt stays in the
>air) was common (with little on-screen timers during each punt) but I
>have not heard it recently.
>
>Of course that "get him the ball" deserves its own thread. Does that
>sense of "get" occur outside of football?
understand the usage, the sportsfan does. Sometimes the best shooter
is well-covered and it's difficult for the other players to pass the
ball to him. So, to score, they've got to "get him the ball".
In (American) football there's no real call for the usage. The play -
who gets the ball - is called in the huddle.
Lewis
Dec 11, 2016, 12:34:07 PM12/11/16
to
In message <billvan-006D25...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>
Someone told them it means "reacting to an event (such as a hockey puck
flying with the grace and poise of a brick toward the net)"? If so, why
would it not still be being used. Maybe they prefer 'reactive'?
--
The only reason for walking into the jaws of Death is so's you can steal
His gold teeth. --Colour of Magic
flying with the grace and poise of a brick toward the net)"? If so, why
would it not still be being used. Maybe they prefer 'reactive'?
--
The only reason for walking into the jaws of Death is so's you can steal
His gold teeth. --Colour of Magic
Richard Yates
Dec 11, 2016, 12:53:10 PM12/11/16
to
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 11, 2016, 1:56:17 PM12/11/16
to
to "get the ball to him." The positioning of indirect-object pronouns
has been discussed in this group frequently.
bill van
Dec 11, 2016, 2:30:45 PM12/11/16
to
In article <gnpq4cp2ghq88or2d...@4ax.com>,
A current usage in hockey commentary is "chasing the game". It means
being outscored and therefore having to devote all your energy to trying
to catch up, rather than the more comfortable approach of scoring first
and then trying to protect your lead.
--
bill
being outscored and therefore having to devote all your energy to trying
to catch up, rather than the more comfortable approach of scoring first
and then trying to protect your lead.
--
bill
bill van
Dec 11, 2016, 2:34:00 PM12/11/16
to
In article <slrno4r3gf....@snow.local>,
And how common do you figure that usage is? Most dictionaries don't even
mention any meanings other than the political one, including both my
small Oxfords (circa 1,800 pages).
--
bill
mention any meanings other than the political one, including both my
small Oxfords (circa 1,800 pages).
--
bill
Lewis
Dec 11, 2016, 3:11:25 PM12/11/16
to
In message <ui4r4c99hisclv3i0...@4ax.com>
That implies the goalie didn't do it based on skill or thought.
--
MY MOM IS NOT DATING JERRY SIENFELD Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF06
--
MY MOM IS NOT DATING JERRY SIENFELD Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF06
bebe...@aol.com
Dec 11, 2016, 3:14:59 PM12/11/16
to
"The rest" on the other hand, is suitable for both cases ("A, B, C and the rest" and "the rest of the milk") -- so that, if one must give a translation of "cetera" (as in "et cetera") without entering into the intricacies of Latin grammar, "all the other(s)", IMHO, is the better choice.
Mark Brader
Dec 11, 2016, 3:27:17 PM12/11/16
to
Richard Yates:
is no longer in fashion. The whole field is one color, dammit!
>> Of course that "get him the ball" deserves its own thread. Does that
>> sense of "get" occur outside of football?
Tony Cooper:
sportstalkish about it. Compare "I got my nephew a job in the
mailroom" or "I got my wife some nice jewelry for our anniversary.
I hope she doesn't find out I stole it."
--
Mark Brader "I like to think of [this] as self-explanatory."
Toronto "I hope *I* think of [it] that way."
m...@vex.net -- Donald Westlake: "Trust Me On This"
My text in this article is in the public domain.
>> My impression is that sports commentators invent, use and then abandon
>> terminology in waves of fashion rather than in response to feedback.
In that case, I look forward to the day when "the red zone" in football
>> terminology in waves of fashion rather than in response to feedback.
is no longer in fashion. The whole field is one color, dammit!
>> Of course that "get him the ball" deserves its own thread. Does that
>> sense of "get" occur outside of football?
> Mostly basketball in my experience. While the non-sportsfan may not
> understand the usage, the sportsfan does. Sometimes the best shooter
> is well-covered and it's difficult for the other players to pass the
> ball to him. So, to score, they've got to "get him the ball".
If that's the meaning in question, then I see nothing particularly
> understand the usage, the sportsfan does. Sometimes the best shooter
> is well-covered and it's difficult for the other players to pass the
> ball to him. So, to score, they've got to "get him the ball".
sportstalkish about it. Compare "I got my nephew a job in the
mailroom" or "I got my wife some nice jewelry for our anniversary.
I hope she doesn't find out I stole it."
--
Mark Brader "I like to think of [this] as self-explanatory."
Toronto "I hope *I* think of [it] that way."
m...@vex.net -- Donald Westlake: "Trust Me On This"
My text in this article is in the public domain.
bosod...@gmail.com
Dec 11, 2016, 3:52:49 PM12/11/16
to
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 5:11:54 PM UTC-8, bill van wrote:
> In article <171b60eb5...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
> Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 8 Dec 2016 Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> > > strictly a Spoonerism, but nevertheless an old favourite: In the late
> > > 1980s I spent a lot of time travelling on the Liverpool-Southport line.
> > > One of the stops on that line is "Seaforth and Litherland". I invariably
> > > referred to it as "See Land and Slither Forth".
> >
> > Didn't one of the BBC weather forecasters predict "fist and mog"?
> >
> A few decades ago, I knew people who would habitually say "one swell
> foop". I haven't heard it lately, however.
> --
> bill
Lol love it -- qualifies to go into my personal BWT (Better Word Than) dictionary.
> In article <171b60eb5...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
> Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 8 Dec 2016 Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On 08/12/16 17:50, Harrison Hill wrote:
> > >> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
> > >> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
> > >>
> > >> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
> > >> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
> >
> > > Certainly not everyday /now/ (although it was, at the time), and not
> > > On 08/12/16 17:50, Harrison Hill wrote:
> > >> There is a thread here today involving an everyday word (in my BrE)
> > >> which is supposed (by wiki) to be derived from a Spoonerism.
> > >>
> > >> What are the words that we use every day which have evolved from
> > >> slips of the tongue - whether deliberately or accidentally?
> >
> > > strictly a Spoonerism, but nevertheless an old favourite: In the late
> > > 1980s I spent a lot of time travelling on the Liverpool-Southport line.
> > > One of the stops on that line is "Seaforth and Litherland". I invariably
> > > referred to it as "See Land and Slither Forth".
> >
> > Didn't one of the BBC weather forecasters predict "fist and mog"?
> >
> A few decades ago, I knew people who would habitually say "one swell
> foop". I haven't heard it lately, however.
> --
> bill
Lol love it -- qualifies to go into my personal BWT (Better Word Than) dictionary.
Richard Yates
Dec 11, 2016, 4:23:17 PM12/11/16
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 14:27:10 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>Richard Yates:
>>> My impression is that sports commentators invent, use and then abandon
>>> terminology in waves of fashion rather than in response to feedback.
>
>In that case, I look forward to the day when "the red zone" in football
>is no longer in fashion. The whole field is one color, dammit!
>
>>> Of course that "get him the ball" deserves its own thread. Does that
>>> sense of "get" occur outside of football?
>
>Tony Cooper:
>> Mostly basketball in my experience. While the non-sportsfan may not
>> understand the usage, the sportsfan does. Sometimes the best shooter
>> is well-covered and it's difficult for the other players to pass the
>> ball to him. So, to score, they've got to "get him the ball".
>
>If that's the meaning in question, then I see nothing particularly
>sportstalkish about it. Compare "I got my nephew a job in the
>mailroom" or "I got my wife some nice jewelry for our anniversary.
>I hope she doesn't find out I stole it."
Those are slightly different usages, though.
>Richard Yates:
>>> My impression is that sports commentators invent, use and then abandon
>>> terminology in waves of fashion rather than in response to feedback.
>
>In that case, I look forward to the day when "the red zone" in football
>is no longer in fashion. The whole field is one color, dammit!
>
>>> Of course that "get him the ball" deserves its own thread. Does that
>>> sense of "get" occur outside of football?
>
>Tony Cooper:
>> Mostly basketball in my experience. While the non-sportsfan may not
>> understand the usage, the sportsfan does. Sometimes the best shooter
>> is well-covered and it's difficult for the other players to pass the
>> ball to him. So, to score, they've got to "get him the ball".
>
>If that's the meaning in question, then I see nothing particularly
>sportstalkish about it. Compare "I got my nephew a job in the
>mailroom" or "I got my wife some nice jewelry for our anniversary.
>I hope she doesn't find out I stole it."
The difference is that In the football usage, you already have the
football. "get him the football" meaning, approximately, "deliver it
to him." In short, "get" means "give."
In "get my wife some jewelry," you do not already have it. If you
bought the jewelry and you were showing it to someone beforehand, you
would not say that "I am going to get my wife the jewelry."
In the job example, your nephew ends up with the job, but you never
had it, and someone else gave it to him. It's closer, but not the same
as the football usage.
"Get" there means "
Richard Yates
Dec 11, 2016, 4:27:41 PM12/11/16
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 20:10:01 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
The strictest meaning of "reflex," as in "patellar reflex," does not
involve skill or thought, but a common use means quick reactions as
described. A coach might even advise you to practice a movement "until
it becomes a reflex."
involve skill or thought, but a common use means quick reactions as
described. A coach might even advise you to practice a movement "until
it becomes a reflex."
Mark Brader
Dec 11, 2016, 7:23:45 PM12/11/16
to
Mark Brader:
> The difference is that In the football usage, you already have the
> football. "get him the football" meaning, approximately, "deliver it
> to him." In short, "get" means "give."
No, in all the examples "get" means to "take action so that the person
has" the thing. Whether you pass the ball, command the hiring of your
nephew, or steal the jewelry doesn't matter. It's all the same thing.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "He is even more important than my cat,
m...@vex.net | which is saying something." --Flash Wilson
>> If that's the meaning in question, then I see nothing particularly
>> sportstalkish about it. Compare "I got my nephew a job in the
>> mailroom" or "I got my wife some nice jewelry for our anniversary.
>> I hope she doesn't find out I stole it."
Richard Yates:
>> sportstalkish about it. Compare "I got my nephew a job in the
>> mailroom" or "I got my wife some nice jewelry for our anniversary.
>> I hope she doesn't find out I stole it."
> Those are slightly different usages, though.
No.
> The difference is that In the football usage, you already have the
> football. "get him the football" meaning, approximately, "deliver it
> to him." In short, "get" means "give."
has" the thing. Whether you pass the ball, command the hiring of your
nephew, or steal the jewelry doesn't matter. It's all the same thing.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "He is even more important than my cat,
m...@vex.net | which is saying something." --Flash Wilson
bosod...@gmail.com
Dec 11, 2016, 7:34:31 PM12/11/16
to
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 12:54:29 AM UTC-8, RH Draney wrote:
> kabiddle"....
>
> (But that's half of one, six dozen of the other)....r
Whats the difference between spoonerisms (if that's what these are) and malaprops?
> On 12/8/2016 6:11 PM, bill van wrote:
> > In article <171b60eb5...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
> > Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> Didn't one of the BBC weather forecasters predict "fist and mog"?
> >>
> > A few decades ago, I knew people who would habitually say "one swell
> > foop". I haven't heard it lately, however.
>
> I still use it myself, usually as an extension of "the whole coot and
> > In article <171b60eb5...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
> > Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> Didn't one of the BBC weather forecasters predict "fist and mog"?
> >>
> > A few decades ago, I knew people who would habitually say "one swell
> > foop". I haven't heard it lately, however.
>
> kabiddle"....
>
> (But that's half of one, six dozen of the other)....r
Whats the difference between spoonerisms (if that's what these are) and malaprops?
David Kleinecke
Dec 11, 2016, 7:46:56 PM12/11/16
to
On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:23:45 PM UTC-8, Mark Brader wrote:
> Mark Brader:
> >> If that's the meaning in question, then I see nothing particularly
> >> sportstalkish about it. Compare "I got my nephew a job in the
> >> mailroom" or "I got my wife some nice jewelry for our anniversary.
> >> I hope she doesn't find out I stole it."
>
> Richard Yates:
> > Those are slightly different usages, though.
>
> No.
>
> > The difference is that In the football usage, you already have the
> > football. "get him the football" meaning, approximately, "deliver it
> > to him." In short, "get" means "give."
>
> No, in all the examples "get" means to "take action so that the person
> has" the thing. Whether you pass the ball, command the hiring of your
> nephew, or steal the jewelry doesn't matter. It's all the same thing.
This is an example of what I have called a benefactive. In my
> Mark Brader:
> >> If that's the meaning in question, then I see nothing particularly
> >> sportstalkish about it. Compare "I got my nephew a job in the
> >> mailroom" or "I got my wife some nice jewelry for our anniversary.
> >> I hope she doesn't find out I stole it."
>
> Richard Yates:
> > Those are slightly different usages, though.
>
> No.
>
> > The difference is that In the football usage, you already have the
> > football. "get him the football" meaning, approximately, "deliver it
> > to him." In short, "get" means "give."
>
> No, in all the examples "get" means to "take action so that the person
> has" the thing. Whether you pass the ball, command the hiring of your
> nephew, or steal the jewelry doesn't matter. It's all the same thing.
opinion what are called indirect objects are a form of benefactive.
A normal transitive use of "get" might be
I got a job in the mailroom
Adding a benefactive the sentence becomes ditransitive:
I got my nephew a job in the mailroom"
The change in meaning is normal with benefactive. But if
one modifies the simpler sentence into a reflexive:
I got myself a job in the mailroom.
One might argue that the ditransitive is the "real" "get" and
the monotransitive version has an ellipted reflexive. I view
questions like this as proof that language is not an
orderly rule-based system.
Joe Fineman
Dec 11, 2016, 9:51:17 PM12/11/16
to
Truly a gross discrepancy.
||: One cannot review a bad book without showing off. :||
||: One cannot review a bad book without showing off. :||
Joe Fineman
Dec 11, 2016, 10:01:34 PM12/11/16
to
bosod...@gmail.com writes:
> Whats the difference between spoonerisms (if that's what these are)
> and malaprops?
Properly, a spoonerism is a distortion due to interchange of parts of
> Whats the difference between spoonerisms (if that's what these are)
> and malaprops?
neighboring words, as in "kinkering congs" for "conquering kings" (IIRC,
the only spoonerism certifiably due to Spooner himself). Many such
inventions were attributed to Spooner & became a department of folklore.
But they also became an independent source of amusement, resulting in
comic poems ("Drear fiend, how shall this spay be dent?") & a regular
column in the Saturday Evening Post ("a moakress eethed is satter").
||: The least you can do is nothing. :||
Jerry Friedman
Dec 12, 2016, 12:27:13 AM12/12/16
to
> Most dictionaries don't even
> mention any meanings other than the political one, including both my
> small Oxfords (circa 1,800 pages).
examples, except that the last one is.
2. /gen./ Of, or relating to, or characterized by reaction, or a
reaction (in various senses); that constitutes a reaction or reversal.
1847 G. Grote /Hist. Greece/ IV. ii. xxxvi. 497 The intensity of the
subsequent displeasure would be aggravated by this reactionary
sentiment.
1879 J. McCarthy /Hist. our Own Times/ II. xviii. 40 The results of
the year that followed were decidedly reactionary.
1920 D. H. Lawrence /Women in Love/ xvi. 219 A liaison was only
another kind of coupling, reactionary from the legal marriage. Reaction
was a greater bore than action.
1979 /Morning News/ (Karachi) 24 May 7/6 The Karachi rapeseeds
market turned reactionary here yesterday.
2003 /Business Jrnl./ (Nexis) 7 Feb. 1 We want to practice
preventative health care and not just reactionary medicine.
--
Jerry Friedman
Richard Yates
Dec 12, 2016, 12:57:41 AM12/12/16
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 18:23:39 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>Mark Brader:
>>> If that's the meaning in question, then I see nothing particularly
>>> sportstalkish about it. Compare "I got my nephew a job in the
>>> mailroom" or "I got my wife some nice jewelry for our anniversary.
>>> I hope she doesn't find out I stole it."
>
>Richard Yates:
>> Those are slightly different usages, though.
>
>No.
>
>> The difference is that In the football usage, you already have the
>> football. "get him the football" meaning, approximately, "deliver it
>> to him." In short, "get" means "give."
>
>No, in all the examples "get" means to "take action so that the person
>has" the thing. Whether you pass the ball, command the hiring of your
>nephew, or steal the jewelry doesn't matter. It's all the same thing.
You have devised a definition that encompasses all of those differing
>Mark Brader:
>>> If that's the meaning in question, then I see nothing particularly
>>> sportstalkish about it. Compare "I got my nephew a job in the
>>> mailroom" or "I got my wife some nice jewelry for our anniversary.
>>> I hope she doesn't find out I stole it."
>
>Richard Yates:
>> Those are slightly different usages, though.
>
>No.
>
>> The difference is that In the football usage, you already have the
>> football. "get him the football" meaning, approximately, "deliver it
>> to him." In short, "get" means "give."
>
>No, in all the examples "get" means to "take action so that the person
>has" the thing. Whether you pass the ball, command the hiring of your
>nephew, or steal the jewelry doesn't matter. It's all the same thing.
sub-usages.
Fine, but those sub-usages still differ one from the other as I
described.
My comment is about one sub-usage and my question is whether that
sub-usage is found outside of American football. Is "get" ever used in
a situation to describe someone who already has something and arranges
for someone else to have it?
LFS
Dec 12, 2016, 1:43:42 AM12/12/16
to
a moment, I'll get you the money.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Lewis
Dec 12, 2016, 1:48:44 AM12/12/16
to
In message <86eg1d3...@verizon.net>
and malapropisms are mostly accidental.
There's a (or was) a burger chain named Fudruckers which my Father in
Law always jokingly referred to as "Rudfuh--"
I'd call that a Spoonerism even though the switch is within the word.
(I'm not eliding anything, that's just how he referred to it, stopping
in mid "uh".)
--
Passion is the pill you can swallow forever Taking them one by one One
by One --Agents of Good Roots "Come On"
Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> bosod...@gmail.com writes:
>> Whats the difference between spoonerisms (if that's what these are)
>> and malaprops?
> Properly, a spoonerism is a distortion due to interchange of parts of
> neighboring words, as in "kinkering congs" for "conquering kings" (IIRC,
> the only spoonerism certifiably due to Spooner himself). Many such
> inventions were attributed to Spooner & became a department of folklore.
> But they also became an independent source of amusement, resulting in
> comic poems ("Drear fiend, how shall this spay be dent?") & a regular
> column in the Saturday Evening Post ("a moakress eethed is satter").
My impression has been that Spoonerisms are almost always intentional
> bosod...@gmail.com writes:
>> Whats the difference between spoonerisms (if that's what these are)
>> and malaprops?
> Properly, a spoonerism is a distortion due to interchange of parts of
> neighboring words, as in "kinkering congs" for "conquering kings" (IIRC,
> the only spoonerism certifiably due to Spooner himself). Many such
> inventions were attributed to Spooner & became a department of folklore.
> But they also became an independent source of amusement, resulting in
> comic poems ("Drear fiend, how shall this spay be dent?") & a regular
> column in the Saturday Evening Post ("a moakress eethed is satter").
and malapropisms are mostly accidental.
There's a (or was) a burger chain named Fudruckers which my Father in
Law always jokingly referred to as "Rudfuh--"
I'd call that a Spoonerism even though the switch is within the word.
(I'm not eliding anything, that's just how he referred to it, stopping
in mid "uh".)
--
Passion is the pill you can swallow forever Taking them one by one One
by One --Agents of Good Roots "Come On"
Mark Brader
Dec 12, 2016, 2:31:12 AM12/12/16
to
Mark Brader:
--
Mark Brader | "And remember, my friends, future events such as
Toronto | these will affect you, in the future."
m...@vex.net | -- Ed Wood, Plan 9 from Outer Space
>> No, in all the examples "get" means to "take action so that the person
>> has" the thing. Whether you pass the ball, command the hiring of your
>> nephew, or steal the jewelry doesn't matter. It's all the same thing.
Richard Yates:
>> has" the thing. Whether you pass the ball, command the hiring of your
>> nephew, or steal the jewelry doesn't matter. It's all the same thing.
> You have devised a definition that encompasses all of those differing
> sub-usages.
There are no differing sub-usages. It's all the same thing.
> sub-usages.
--
Mark Brader | "And remember, my friends, future events such as
Toronto | these will affect you, in the future."
m...@vex.net | -- Ed Wood, Plan 9 from Outer Space
Peter Young
Dec 12, 2016, 2:37:34 AM12/12/16
to
On 12 Dec 2016 Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <86eg1d3...@verizon.net>
> Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> bosod...@gmail.com writes:
>>> Whats the difference between spoonerisms (if that's what these are)
>>> and malaprops?
>> Properly, a spoonerism is a distortion due to interchange of parts of
>> neighboring words, as in "kinkering congs" for "conquering kings" (IIRC,
>> the only spoonerism certifiably due to Spooner himself). Many such
>> inventions were attributed to Spooner & became a department of folklore.
>> But they also became an independent source of amusement, resulting in
>> comic poems ("Drear fiend, how shall this spay be dent?") & a regular
>> column in the Saturday Evening Post ("a moakress eethed is satter").
> My impression has been that Spoonerisms are almost always intentional
> and malapropisms are mostly accidental.
> There's a (or was) a burger chain named Fudruckers which my Father in
> Law always jokingly referred to as "Rudfuh--"
Rather along the lines of a former colleague, who would call out
> In message <86eg1d3...@verizon.net>
> Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> bosod...@gmail.com writes:
>>> Whats the difference between spoonerisms (if that's what these are)
>>> and malaprops?
>> Properly, a spoonerism is a distortion due to interchange of parts of
>> neighboring words, as in "kinkering congs" for "conquering kings" (IIRC,
>> the only spoonerism certifiably due to Spooner himself). Many such
>> inventions were attributed to Spooner & became a department of folklore.
>> But they also became an independent source of amusement, resulting in
>> comic poems ("Drear fiend, how shall this spay be dent?") & a regular
>> column in the Saturday Evening Post ("a moakress eethed is satter").
> My impression has been that Spoonerisms are almost always intentional
> and malapropisms are mostly accidental.
> There's a (or was) a burger chain named Fudruckers which my Father in
> Law always jokingly referred to as "Rudfuh--"
Antipodean friends as "Oz trucking Falians".
Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Ir)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Peter Young
Dec 12, 2016, 2:37:34 AM12/12/16
to
On 12 Dec 2016 Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> bosod...@gmail.com writes:
>> Whats the difference between spoonerisms (if that's what these are)
>> and malaprops?
> Properly, a spoonerism is a distortion due to interchange of parts of
> neighboring words, as in "kinkering congs" for "conquering kings" (IIRC,
> the only spoonerism certifiably due to Spooner himself). Many such
> inventions were attributed to Spooner & became a department of folklore.
> But they also became an independent source of amusement, resulting in
> comic poems ("Drear fiend, how shall this spay be dent?") & a regular
> column in the Saturday Evening Post ("a moakress eethed is satter").
I thought another certified near-Spoonerism was "Yes I remember your
> bosod...@gmail.com writes:
>> Whats the difference between spoonerisms (if that's what these are)
>> and malaprops?
> Properly, a spoonerism is a distortion due to interchange of parts of
> neighboring words, as in "kinkering congs" for "conquering kings" (IIRC,
> the only spoonerism certifiably due to Spooner himself). Many such
> inventions were attributed to Spooner & became a department of folklore.
> But they also became an independent source of amusement, resulting in
> comic poems ("Drear fiend, how shall this spay be dent?") & a regular
> column in the Saturday Evening Post ("a moakress eethed is satter").
name perfectly, but I can't place your face".
Katy Jennison
Dec 12, 2016, 3:57:28 AM12/12/16
to
On 12/12/2016 07:35, Peter Young wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2016 Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> In message <86eg1d3...@verizon.net>
>> Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> bosod...@gmail.com writes:
>
>>>> Whats the difference between spoonerisms (if that's what these are)
>>>> and malaprops?
>
>>> Properly, a spoonerism is a distortion due to interchange of parts of
>>> neighboring words, as in "kinkering congs" for "conquering kings" (IIRC,
>>> the only spoonerism certifiably due to Spooner himself). Many such
>>> inventions were attributed to Spooner & became a department of folklore.
>>> But they also became an independent source of amusement, resulting in
>>> comic poems ("Drear fiend, how shall this spay be dent?") & a regular
>>> column in the Saturday Evening Post ("a moakress eethed is satter").
>
>> My impression has been that Spoonerisms are almost always intentional
>> and malapropisms are mostly accidental.
>
>> There's a (or was) a burger chain named Fudruckers which my Father in
>> Law always jokingly referred to as "Rudfuh--"
>
> Rather along the lines of a former colleague, who would call out
> Antipodean friends as "Oz trucking Falians".
>
Ah, that reminds me: "No wuckers", derived from a spoonerism and
> On 12 Dec 2016 Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> In message <86eg1d3...@verizon.net>
>> Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> bosod...@gmail.com writes:
>
>>>> Whats the difference between spoonerisms (if that's what these are)
>>>> and malaprops?
>
>>> Properly, a spoonerism is a distortion due to interchange of parts of
>>> neighboring words, as in "kinkering congs" for "conquering kings" (IIRC,
>>> the only spoonerism certifiably due to Spooner himself). Many such
>>> inventions were attributed to Spooner & became a department of folklore.
>>> But they also became an independent source of amusement, resulting in
>>> comic poems ("Drear fiend, how shall this spay be dent?") & a regular
>>> column in the Saturday Evening Post ("a moakress eethed is satter").
>
>> My impression has been that Spoonerisms are almost always intentional
>> and malapropisms are mostly accidental.
>
>> There's a (or was) a burger chain named Fudruckers which my Father in
>> Law always jokingly referred to as "Rudfuh--"
>
> Rather along the lines of a former colleague, who would call out
> Antipodean friends as "Oz trucking Falians".
>
truncated much as some rhyming slang is truncated.
Malapropisms may start out as accidents, but often get adopted within a
family or a particular group.
--
Katy Jennison
bert
Dec 12, 2016, 5:48:33 AM12/12/16
to
On Monday, 12 December 2016 03:01:34 UTC, Joe Fineman wrote:
> bosod...@gmail.com writes:
>
> > Whats the difference between spoonerisms (if that's what these are)
> > and malaprops?
>
> Properly, a spoonerism is a distortion due to interchange of parts of
> neighboring words, as in "kinkering congs" for "conquering kings" (IIRC,
> the only spoonerism certifiably due to Spooner himself).
Quite likely the only *verbal* spoonerism. It is also said
> bosod...@gmail.com writes:
>
> > Whats the difference between spoonerisms (if that's what these are)
> > and malaprops?
>
> Properly, a spoonerism is a distortion due to interchange of parts of
> neighboring words, as in "kinkering congs" for "conquering kings" (IIRC,
> the only spoonerism certifiably due to Spooner himself).
that, at a dinner party, he accidentally spilled some salt
on the tablecloth. After a visible pause for thought, he
trickled a few drops of red wine from his glass onto it.
[For those less-informed: (1) the superstition that he was
trying to think of was to throw a little of any spilled salt
over one's left shoulder; (2) the household hint that he
confused it with was to sprinkle salt onto a red wine spill.]
--
occam
Dec 12, 2016, 6:14:43 AM12/12/16
to
On 11/12/2016 15:41, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 12/11/16 12:02 AM, bill van wrote:
> ...
> a reaction to a stimulus or event" is common. I don't think my students
> know the political meaning.
>
Be that as it may, the sort of save referred to by bill van is more
commonly known as a 'reflex save' and never as a 'reactionary save'.
The latter sounds so wrong.
> On 12/11/16 12:02 AM, bill van wrote:
> ...
>
>> A couple of seasons ago, most of our ice hockey play-by-play announcers
>> kept telling us that a goaltender had made "a reactionary save". They
>> meant that the goalie had reacted to the shot, as opposed to "a
>> positional save", which is blocking a shot by being in the right place.
>>
>> Someone must have told them what "reactionary" means. It has disappeared
>> completely from the commentary in the present National Hockey League
>> season.
>
> I wish someone would tell Americans. "Reactionary" in the sense of "as
>> A couple of seasons ago, most of our ice hockey play-by-play announcers
>> kept telling us that a goaltender had made "a reactionary save". They
>> meant that the goalie had reacted to the shot, as opposed to "a
>> positional save", which is blocking a shot by being in the right place.
>>
>> Someone must have told them what "reactionary" means. It has disappeared
>> completely from the commentary in the present National Hockey League
>> season.
>
> a reaction to a stimulus or event" is common. I don't think my students
> know the political meaning.
>
Be that as it may, the sort of save referred to by bill van is more
commonly known as a 'reflex save' and never as a 'reactionary save'.
The latter sounds so wrong.
Richard Yates
Dec 12, 2016, 7:46:39 AM12/12/16
to
have to first go get it from somewhere in the house.
Would you say that if you were holding the money instead of "I will
bring you the money" or "Here is your money"?
J. J. Lodder
Dec 12, 2016, 8:42:04 AM12/12/16
to
rather than put a card with an amount due on it in your letterbox?
Jan
CDB
Dec 12, 2016, 9:02:01 AM12/12/16
to
On 12/11/2016 8:20 AM, Dingbat wrote:
> be etc. rather than et al. For comparison, Tamil has different terms
> for 'the rest' and 'others'; the rest of a group would use the former
> term, including the rest of a group of authors.
Since the difference between "the other men/rest of the men", "the other
women/rest of the women" and the otherthings/rest of the things" is
signalled by a part of the word that is dropped in abbreviation, the
convention has arisen that "etc." stands for "et cetera" and "et al" for
"et alii".
Maybe it's because I don't have an otherly clusive "we", but the
difference between "the rest" and "the others" doesn't seem as important
to me as the difference between things and people. Does Tamil have an
inanimate gender?
> A distinction between exclusive and inclusive "others": In Tamil,
> enai means "the rest of the party under discussion" whereas mattavar/
> mattellaavar means "others"/ " all others". Unlike some languages,
> English doesn't use separate words to distinguish exclusive and
> inclusive; for example, English "we" could be either exclusive or
> inclusive depending on context but in Tamil; naangal and nammal are
> exclusive and inclusive "we", respectively, and not interchangeable.
> Joe Fineman wrote:
>> bebe...@aol.com writes:
>>> Le samedi 10 décembre 2016 00:00:36 UTC+1, Dingbat a écrit :
>>>> Aside: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/etc claims that et alia
>>>> is a synonym of et cetera.
>>> I was taught "alia" means "the others" and "cetera" "all the
>>> others".
>> In Latin, "alia" means "others" (neuter), and "cetera" means "the
>> rest", so that is a fair rule of thumb:
>> Inter alia,... Nil nisi divinum stabile est, cetera fumus.
>> bebe...@aol.com writes:
>>> Le samedi 10 décembre 2016 00:00:36 UTC+1, Dingbat a écrit :
>>>> Aside: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/etc claims that et alia
>>>> is a synonym of et cetera.
>>> I was taught "alia" means "the others" and "cetera" "all the
>>> others".
>> In Latin, "alia" means "others" (neuter), and "cetera" means "the
>> rest", so that is a fair rule of thumb:
>> Inter alia,... Nil nisi divinum stabile est, cetera fumus.
>> In English, *properly*, "et al." (for "alii", not "alia") is a
>> scholarly idiom for "the other authors of a previously cited work"
>> or, more loosely, for "that author and his/her coworkers".
>> However, in vulgar academese, it has indeed become a pretentious
>> synonym of "etc.", which has burst the bounds of Latin (see MEU):
>> it can mean "and other or similar things or people".
> IMHO, if etc. means 'the rest', then the rest of the authors ought to
>> scholarly idiom for "the other authors of a previously cited work"
>> or, more loosely, for "that author and his/her coworkers".
>> However, in vulgar academese, it has indeed become a pretentious
>> synonym of "etc.", which has burst the bounds of Latin (see MEU):
>> it can mean "and other or similar things or people".
> be etc. rather than et al. For comparison, Tamil has different terms
> for 'the rest' and 'others'; the rest of a group would use the former
> term, including the rest of a group of authors.
Since the difference between "the other men/rest of the men", "the other
women/rest of the women" and the otherthings/rest of the things" is
signalled by a part of the word that is dropped in abbreviation, the
convention has arisen that "etc." stands for "et cetera" and "et al" for
"et alii".
Maybe it's because I don't have an otherly clusive "we", but the
difference between "the rest" and "the others" doesn't seem as important
to me as the difference between things and people. Does Tamil have an
inanimate gender?
> A distinction between exclusive and inclusive "others": In Tamil,
> enai means "the rest of the party under discussion" whereas mattavar/
> mattellaavar means "others"/ " all others". Unlike some languages,
> English doesn't use separate words to distinguish exclusive and
> inclusive; for example, English "we" could be either exclusive or
> inclusive depending on context but in Tamil; naangal and nammal are
> exclusive and inclusive "we", respectively, and not interchangeable.
CDB
Dec 12, 2016, 9:05:52 AM12/12/16
to
On 12/11/2016 3:14 PM, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> CDB a écrit :
That would be a form of "reliquus", maybe. See below.
> "The rest" on the other hand, is suitable for both cases ("A, B, C
> and the rest" and "the rest of the milk") -- so that, if one must
> give a translation of "cetera" (as in "et cetera") without entering
> into the intricacies of Latin grammar, "all the other(s)", IMHO, is
> the better choice.
_Lewis and Short_ says that the distinction was only loosely observed in
Latin.
"Still these ideas, esp. after the Aug. per., are often confounded, and
the Engl., the remainder, the rest, and the adverb. phrase for the rest,
etc., can be used interchangeably for both words." (The distinction in
this case was between "ceterus" and "reliquus".)
<http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dceterus>
> CDB a écrit :
> "The rest" on the other hand, is suitable for both cases ("A, B, C
> and the rest" and "the rest of the milk") -- so that, if one must
> give a translation of "cetera" (as in "et cetera") without entering
> into the intricacies of Latin grammar, "all the other(s)", IMHO, is
> the better choice.
Latin.
"Still these ideas, esp. after the Aug. per., are often confounded, and
the Engl., the remainder, the rest, and the adverb. phrase for the rest,
etc., can be used interchangeably for both words." (The distinction in
this case was between "ceterus" and "reliquus".)
<http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dceterus>
CDB
Dec 12, 2016, 9:39:49 AM12/12/16
to
On 12/12/2016 7:46 AM, Richard Yates wrote:
> LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
Get me to the church on time.
> LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
bebe...@aol.com
Dec 12, 2016, 11:07:55 AM12/12/16
to
BTW there's a name for the process of replacing a phrase composed of a noun + a genitive noun (in this case "ceterum lactis"
LFS
Dec 12, 2016, 11:26:19 AM12/12/16
to
in a pocket about my person and I was fumbling to find it I might well
use the same words. "Get" in this context still implies to me an item
being moved from some place to the recipient which is what I thought you
were asking about.
>
> Would you say that if you were holding the money instead of "I will
> bring you the money" or "Here is your money"?
>
bebe...@aol.com
Dec 12, 2016, 11:37:40 AM12/12/16
to
RH Draney
Dec 12, 2016, 11:40:53 AM12/12/16
to
On 12/12/2016 3:48 AM, bert wrote:
>
> Quite likely the only *verbal* spoonerism. It is also said
> that, at a dinner party, he accidentally spilled some salt
> on the tablecloth. After a visible pause for thought, he
> trickled a few drops of red wine from his glass onto it.
Spoofed, after a fashion, in "Thoroughly Modern Millie", in which
>
> Quite likely the only *verbal* spoonerism. It is also said
> that, at a dinner party, he accidentally spilled some salt
> on the tablecloth. After a visible pause for thought, he
> trickled a few drops of red wine from his glass onto it.
someone mixes up cure and disease and tries to remove a club soda stain
with soy sauce....r
Tony Cooper
Dec 12, 2016, 11:55:24 AM12/12/16
to
where some of the people are starving. The food deliveries, however,
often end up in the hands of criminal elements who sell the food at
outrageous prices to people who are not the intended recipients.
The problem is "How do you get the food to the people who need it?"
Repeating an earlier post...the phrase "...need to get the ball to..."
is not used in American football. It is used in basketball. In
American football, the person who will get the ball is determined in
the huddle by choosing one of the pre-determined plays in the
playbook.
The phrase in American football would be "give the ball to..." or
"pass the ball to...". The latter is different from "get the ball to"
because it is a designed play where in basketball getting the ball to
a particular player is part of continuous play.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Harrison Hill
Dec 12, 2016, 12:04:28 PM12/12/16
to
recognition - in London at least. Previously you would have had
a card through the door, from a window cleaner who whizzed round
the house. Then came back in the evening to pick up his money.
Nowadays a couple of Poles do our windows. They often turn us down
because they are so busy; but they are scrupulous and do a fabulous
job *very* cheaply.
My son is working in Copenhagen, Jan. His third Xmas works party
(on consecutive days), started at 2.00pm Saturday afternoon and
finished at 2.00am Sunday morning; with accommodation, meals and all
drinks paid for, at the hotel. At least a few of the old working
practices are being preserved :)
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages